The first article that I am researchering focuses on making concept driven interaction design a plausible form of research. Concept driven approaches aim to manifest theoretical concepts in concrete designs. Primarily, the authors of this article, Erik Stolterman and Mikael Wiberg, question why concept-driven approaches have not been explicitly recognized as a proper research methodology. This article explores integration of concept driven interaction with current studies of human-interface theories. It conducts a qualitative study of current design principles and skills, and in turn compares them to ideas sculpting that on concept-driven design. The researchers found that concept-driven approaches can coexist with traditional user-centered theory by proposing a model that focuses not just on the final product, but reiteration of the product from the conceptual phase onward. It also acknowledges that the major risk in taking up this type of research is that good concept design is generally more difficult than it is successful; however, it’s contributions to Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is still extremely significant.
The majority of this article is very heavily based around the ideation that HCI is limiting itself by not including concept-driven interaction design. The examples pulledi n the article reference three major projects that were recognized as both successful and concept-driven: DynaBook, a learning module for children; ActiveBadges, a mobile tracking device made for tracking indoors; and Bricks, a digital manipulation program similar to that of a renderign program. My primary concerns with the paper are as follows: while DynaBook, ActiveBadges, and Bricks are all ‘cornerstones’ of this type of research, the fact of the matter is most of it is outdated. These are theorems built as early as the 1970s, giving HCI plenty of time to develop and grow in favor of user-centered design. The most recent achievement of the three listed is Bricks, and that goes as far as 1995. I agree with the researchers that this form of research could be extremely useful, but they would benefit greatly from getting something more recent to support the argument; utilizing the sources listed gives off the impression that it is outdated.
Later in this article, it actively discusses how the execution of concept-driven interaction design is extremely difficult. Why advocate a process that is extremely hard to execute if we have a handful that we (as researchers) know is much simpler, and, ultimately, effective? I get a steady impression that the concept-driven design is attempting to ‘lump’ multiple steps in a design process and declare it as a new research method (again, this is my opinion we’re talking about). Interaction research is technically consider part of the design research process, and is used widely in an array of tasks (management, marketing, simple research, etc.). The article argues that concept-driven interaction design research differs from design-oriented research because it utilizes both design centered and theory oriented principles-however, I still feel that it is trying to expedite a process taht is already well known and utilized.
In conclusion, I feel that this theory has some merit and potential to contribute to HCI, however the basis defining is still somewhat weak. In theory, it sounds very logical and effective, but there are too many factors that the authors have admitted make it extremely difficult to execute, and in turn would convince one to instead use previous proven methods.
Reference: Stolterman, Erik and Wiberg, Mikael(2010) ‘Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research’, Human-Computer Interaction, 25: 2, 95 – 118.